
FLM 

2015 

024483 


LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 


□DDD5D5b4TD 

































































. s ' "o * * * 

** "W 



>v 


A - 

♦ &/ 1 • 

4 ^<J- V & ' * 

,cr • •••• o 

«i 



• . - * A 'O,.- 

«A , i' # <£. 

.C/tffcC* %r 

** %. 0 i 



/* • - ’ y % ‘ * - < • v ^ '* 

^ v v .*•■>- c> .o V 




- ' ^, A * 


VA 


^ # 


* V *V 


' f °^ 

•«• 0 V?^ °^. * * < ’ 

V f< • °* c* - 

•y. a ,WWV- *<?• 

■W : ^ 

G vf* J >~l§l!Wmis7 a tV** 


«r/ «,* '■$ ‘.SaK^ 4 V ^ '•'VJWS J? % '-W^* 4 V ’ 

* A "V A < *'o. k » 0^ 'V 4 av?‘* a ' 

Cr o 0 " 0 ♦ ^O ,G V . v' • „ CT 0 * 9 * **o Jr . *■" 

6 tV£5$hr^# ° aT* J&tflTfe, * V C • cf^Tv^^ O J** *Vv775? 


• A 




v*^* / 



,A 


o V 


G° 

o_ v*2^.* 0 ° % % 

*'0.0- V ^ ** ’* %> '**< 

. , > . t ♦ o ^ o- - 0 . * v *>V 

✓ \j “ A V 5 _„ j Sft. v 

* A^ "V' ^ , 

- v^ c, ^E5fe" v* 

<-G ^ •* ® aV^ * ^ 

s 9 £aR3* & %> » ' 

^ 'o .* 14 ,G V \d *✓;"*' A <\ 'c.f* G^ 

A .Or ft ® fl t * a M qv 0 0 * ° 

4** ^ 



► 

O o 

^ • 11 ^ 

c\ <9 * * * ■ • 

• «' 

» aV-^ *. 

♦ -V ” 

• .A <A '»•»* 

,4^ ^ t 0‘- ..•*• 

»o’ . o,, wsfKi" *b& :£m&hj:« \o^ 

° . 4 * ^ » J- 0 ,r <#- » «5 c *> 

°“ e ' \S>’ e H*. *»•’*’ 4 ° '»».• •' a* -1 : o '*■ 

'- V /T vt- .4 

« ^ 4 s . Jawfes r 

• V ^ * '• A't'r. 


4, V v f f # 


O A^'^V o 
* •¥ *& » 




* o 


i*' t'jrrAfrl; '%> 0 • 

.' - ”^t* 0 ^ “ 

: ' 

% ‘ * - ’ * >° .. V : ^* ^ *r° 

'•-%./ /M* W v /•-*•- ^ " 





-•<* -0‘ x». *'..• , 

Vi v .!<. 

0 A ♦* 

: ^o v> : 

; ^° %. *. 

o, C* A° * 

♦ ^ V 1, *0*° A 

'* ^ V/ y®- ^ , 



o w 0 










* • • ** .A *o . » 

A 4, . • 1 ' ♦ 



0JrssSX° &" -*• i>°"A 

' <1 r r\ <"\ V ^* 

♦.„»’ ^ O .,,,.’ 0° V 

V f * • °* c\ .<y .*••* ^ 

*> <x v * c> * £;JCV • 



SR?/** % 

' ••* * -A 

a 4 


«i> ••«•• <y % * 

> V ♦*••* ^* 

^ A 4 .»-«“»•*- «*- 

V^ v •; 

. 1/^* 

U *'...** ,6 4 * *o 

<S>. ~ 4 .... ^ 0 " A 

r ♦■ 



:. o t* 

>* ^ *9 ^ V 

&• .* 

>** 


• «£ 


.0 1 ___ 

° °WW % c.^'Cn -*>Sfiil?« v V«* * 

■ ' A ^ 'o.7‘ ., 

-* o°* .*J*L*% °, s'li'. ++ ,o* 


'TV?* A 

.a 4 


* • 


W > ^ rV w 0 <L^ 

»' s 4> °* *••’•* f°° v * .T. •• .A °o 

.% t* A 4 -MSB*.'- > A /-** • 

V A •« 


fb A*^ ; - 

.* 


: -SK* ; 4 ^ *°*™- ; /\ ll 

/ v ^ sg^'X ° ’ ' * ’ 

V ^ \*?^‘ / ■‘'t' „o >0 


4 °^ 


°^. *"’• A° V »...' A. 4 O *,,,•’ .0' 

•*•» i0 v .VV-, *> V s .**•- ^ ,0 4 .•••'. 

: \S A\ %A \/ 

^ ^ v % V?w 

<-• '••>' jCt 'TJ'T* a. ^ '- ■ * 

« 4 .... v ,* 4 .-^., \ 

* ifry7>v>s - Tjy 


a* 



iT J 




■< 

o ^ # c^y/m# > 

% > v % •*••. c\ ,<y »•**% ^ 

* <? ^ • i 

.<L V rik - 


^• .A V % A ' * ‘ V. -fr 4 \ 

X . ^, 4 * • v 1 # ♦ 0^^ . 9 * * * . 




V . 


t • o 


■ °x« 


°o 


• .e? 


• o 


.-•• 0^ V ■ 

A° ^ 


OX* 




SPEECH 


MR, BADGER, OF NORTH CAROLINA, 

OK THE 

TEN REGIMENT RILL. 

DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JAN. 18, 1848. 


The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill to raise, for a limited time, an additional military 
force. 

Mr. BADGER said: If I believed, sir, that the duty which I owe to the country, 
and to the State which has sent me here, could be performed by yielding to the requi¬ 
sitions of the Executive such supplies as he may deem requisite for the prosecution of 
the war, upon plans for prosecuting it which have not been fully made know T n to Con¬ 
gress—if I believed that I had not a high and controlling obligation to exercise my own 
best judgment for the benefit of those whom I represent, and for the general welfare 
of the country, upon every question submitted to the consideration of this body, I 
might be disposed to vote for the bill upon your table. If, sir, the yeas and nays had 
not been ordered upon the passage of this bill, I might have been content to permit the 
measure to pass, as far as I am concerned, without offering a single word to the Senate 
upon its intrinsic merits. But the yeas and nays have been ordered upon this bill. I 
cannot vote for it. I shall record my vote against it; and I think it is due to the country 
—I feel that it is due to myself—that the views and principles which will govern my 
conduct in giving this vote should be plainly and distinctly stated, and should accom¬ 
pany, to the public, the vote itself. I shall endeavor to assign those views and princi¬ 
ples in as short a compass as is consistent with a full exposition of what I believe to 
be the truth on this all important subject, and which every consideration obliges me to 
put before those whom I represent, without any unnecessary diminution, without leav¬ 
ing out any thing that may be required in a full and complete expression of the argu¬ 
ment which, in my m-ind, is conclusive in regard to the measure before you. I shall 
offer my own opinions, sir, with entire respect, and even deferential consideration, for 
the great minds of this body, and throughout the country, whom I know to be arrayed 
against me. Without intending towards them any disrespect, I shall take the liberty 
to declare what are the opinions which I entertain with regard to the origin of the war, 
the manner of its prosecution, the tendency of the measures now proposed, and the 
schemes that are evidently entertained by the Executive of the country in relation to 
it. I shall not go as far back, sir, as an honorable Senator from Maryland did a few 
days ago, (I mean the honorable Senator from that State who first addressed the 
Senate upon this bill,) but, nevertheless, 1 shall be under the necessity of going a 
little back, for the purpose of making myself fully understood. 

First, then, I will lay it down, and endeavor to demonstrate, that the war in which 
we are now engaged with Mexico was the immediate result of the unlawful and unconst itu¬ 
tional act of the President of the United States. I suppose, sir, that there is no gentleman 
on this floor, or elsewhere, who supposes or believes that the President of the U. S. is 
vested with the war power of this country. It is a power expressly, and in terms, con¬ 
ferred upon the Congress of the U. States. And the President would have no control 
over it, direct or indirect, except from the incidental circumstance of his limited veto 
on the action of the two Houses; and except from the fact that, in virtue of his oifice, 
he is the chief commander, the principal military officer, of the United States. 

I maintain, then, Mr. President, that when the President of the U. S. moved the 
troops under General Taylor to the Rio Grande, and took possession of the left bank 
of that stream, he committed a clear and undoubted act of war. What is war ? What 
do all the writers on the law of nations tell us it is ? They all. in substance, define it 
to be a contest about rights, which is carried on or maintained, not by argument, but 


2 


£ t\o ! 

by force. It can, therefore, admit of no question, that when a nation claiming certain 
rights, which are disputed by another, undertakes to support those rights by force, sue 
undertakes to support them by war—war as far as she is concerned. It is true, if the 
act of violence or aggression on her part be not resisted by the nation that suffers it— 
if it be patiently and tamely submitted to—no war results. To constitute war, it is as 
essential that there should be two parties, as it is that there should be two parties to a 
treaty of peace. The act of one nation cannot alone constitute war; it is like the case of 
an individual striking a blow: if it be not resented, no contest, no battle, no fight is the 
result. The blow is an act of aggression; it is an act commencing a contest, but it does 
not amount to a perfect contest. Whether this act on the part of the President was an 
act of war, of hostility, of aggression, depends not at all upon the question, whether 
w T e had a right to the territory of which he took forcible possession. War, between 
nations, pre-supposes a contest about rights. The publicists, who speak of contests 
between nations, never suppose them to contend except about rights. War is a contest 
about rights. Public war is a contest between nations about rights, carried on by force 
and not by argument. If, therefore, it were assumed as clear and unquestionable that 
the title of Texas and the U. S. extended to the Rio Grande, it is still beyond all doubt 
that, Mexico possessing the left bank of that stream, having settlements there, having 
officers there, and exercising jurisdiction there—any movement to dispossess Mexico, 
to occupy what she thus occupied, and what she claimed to be her own, is an act of 
war. It is an act of war, just and rightful if the territory be ours—just and rightful if 
the territory be unjustly and improperly withheld—just and rightful if, also, the act of 
war be directed by those who represent the sovereignty of the nation. Welly sir, this 
act was directed by the President of the U. S. He ordered the troops to the Rio Grande. 
They advanced. When they came into the Mexican settlement, the inhabitants fled 
before them in dismay; the officers abandoned the public buildings and set fire to them; 
and, under such circumstances, our forces, under the command of officers of the U. S., 
took from Mexico that of which she was in possession, and by force kept possession of 
the territory, and placed it under the jurisdiction of the United States. 

Now, sir, on this subject I had the honor at the last session to bring to the attention 
of the Senate the action of Mr. Jefferson, during his administration of this Government, 
under circumstances of a very similar character; with this difference, that the title of the 
territory then withheld from us was truly and clearly ours. In every other respect the 
case was like this. The territory was withheld by another power, and a disposition 
manifested by that power to deprive us of what we owned. Under these circumstances, 
Mr. Jefferson conceived that he had no right to use the military force of the country to 
obtain possession of that which was withheld from us, though clearly ours. And he 
states, as the reason for referring the subject to the determination of Congress, that 
matters relating to peace and war belong exclusively to that body, and not to him; and as 
this movement might change the relation of the two countries from peace to war, there¬ 
fore, it belonged to Congress to determine whether the movement should be made. 

But, Mr. President, I have other authority. I certainly shall not say that it is more 
respectable in itself than the authority of Mr. Jefferson. I doubt very much whether, 
with a large portion of the American people, and of the Senate, it will be thought quite 
equal to Mr. Jefferson’s. But upon this question, with respect to the President of the U. 

S., the authority is conclusive and overpowering. It creates upon him, what lawyers 
call an estoppel , for I am able to show that the President of the U. S. has himself re¬ 
cognised that such an act as this is an act of hostility—of aggression—of war. On the 
11th of July, 1845, the Secretary of the Navy writes a confidential communication to 
Commodore Conner, then commanding in the Gulf of Mexico. He says: 

“ The unanimous vote of the Texan Congress for annexation leaves no doubt of the consummation 
of that measure. When you ascertain, satisfactorily, that the Texan convention, which assembled on 
the 4th, has also acceded to annexation, you will regard Texas as apart of your country —to be de¬ 
fended like any other part of it. 

“ At the same time, every honorable effort is to be made to preserve peace with all nations. The resto¬ 
ration of our boundary on the southwest, by the consent and choice of the people of Texas, is due to 
the strong attraction of the principles of liberty, which endear America to every one of its sons, and is a 
tribute before the world to the policy of peace, of political freedom, and of union on the principles of 
freedom. It is the President’s desire that this great event should be consummated without the effu¬ 
sion of blood, and without the exercise of force; believing that free institutions, in their own right, will 
achieve all that can be desired.” 


3 


I read this part of the communication for the purpose of shewing, that though this 
paper \Vas written on the 11th ot July—prior to the actual consummation of the act of 
annexation—yet the instructions to which 1 propose more particularly to call the at¬ 
tention of the Senate, are given prospectively—cautiously—and with a view to the 
actual completion of that measure, when, as appears from the instructions them¬ 
selves, the officer to whom they were directed was required to consider Texas as a 
part of this country. The letter proceeds: 

“ To secure this end most effectually, you are charged to commit no act of aggression; and, at the same 
time, you are invested with the command of a force sufficient to take from others a disposition to hostile 
ads.” 

Then, after enumerating the force at the officer’s command, the Secretary says : 

“ That you may precisely understand what is meant by the aggression which you are instructed to 
avoid, I will add, that while the annexation of Texas extends ourboundary to the Del Norte, the Pre¬ 
sident reserves the vindication of our boundary, if possible, to methods of peace. You will, therefore, 
not employ force to dislodge Mexican troops from any post east of the Del Norte which was in the ac¬ 
tual possession of the Mexicans at the time of annexation. 

“ Should Mexico declare tear, you will at once dislodge her troops from any post she may have east of 
the mouth of the Del Norte; take possession of Tampico; and, if your force is sufficient, will take the 
castle of San Juan d’Ulloa; it being the determination of the President to preserve peace , if possible; 
and, if war comes, to recover peace by adopting the most prompt and energetic measures.”— Doc. H. 
R 19—2d Sess., 29 Ih Congress. 

Again: The Secretary of War writes General Taylor under date of July 8, 1845: 

“This department is informed that Mexico has some military establishments on the east side of the 
Itio Grande, which are, and for some time have been, in the actual occupancy of her troops. In carry¬ 
ing out the ins"uctions heretofore received, you will be careful to avoid any acts of aggression, unless an 
actual state of war should exist. The Mexican forces at the posts in their possession, and which have 
been so, will not be disturbed as long as the relations of peace between the U. S. and Mexico continue.” 

Here we have, from the representatives of the President in the two Departments, 
War and Navy, a clear and distinct recognition of this proposition, that, although the 
President held our true boundary to be the Del Norte, yet it would be “an act of ag¬ 
gression,” “a hostile act,” an act which would not be justifiable except in a state 
of war, to dispossess Mexico of any portion of that territory of which she held posses¬ 
sion at the time of the annexation. When, therefore, orders were issued to General 
Taylor, on the 13th of January, 1846, to advance and occupy a position on the left bank 
of the Rio Grande, admitted to be in the possession of Mexico, the President ordered 
what he then, undoubtedly, understood to be an act of war. He ordered what he in¬ 
tended, and what he supposed would be regarded on the part of Mexico, as an act of 
hostility—of aggression. For, sir, you will observe, that when General Taylor, in the 
execution of this order, advanced to the Rio Grande, and drove the Mexicans from their 
possessions—when he occupied what had before been occupied by the Mexicans—and 
these facts were reported to the President, there was not the slightest intimation on 
his part that General Taylor had exceeded the scope of the orders which had been 
given him, and had thus been the means of precipitating the country into a war, which, 
by a prudent forbearance, might have been avoided. On the contrary, up to this very 
moment, all that was done in pursuance of that order has been recognised by the 
President as having been rightfully done, as having been done in accordance with 
the purposes which the Executive had in view when the orders were given. 

But, sir, if the act was not an act of war, it was plainly and manifestly an act which 
was likely to produce a state of war. It was an act the tendency of which was to change 
the relations of Mexico and this country from a state of peace to a state of war. Can 
there be any doubt of this, sir? It is impossible to doubt it, when we recollect the 
unhappy and angry state of feeling which existed between the two countries. When 
we recollect the position which our army held at Corpus Christi for so many months, 
and the disputes existing between the two countries-r-the mutual charges of insin¬ 
cerity and breaches of faith—when we recollect all this, it must be manifest that such 
an act as moving an armed force to the Rio Grande was, in itself, if not an act of 
war, at least one which wore the appearance of aggression, and one which was cal¬ 
culated to rouse the feelings of the Mexicans, and to provoke retaliation. Thus much 
must be conceded; and if so, sir, whence did the President of the United States de- 
jive his power to do tliis without the consent of Congress? 


4 


According to Mr. Jefferson, an act which in its execution may change the relations 
<of the country from peace to war, is an act beyond the competency of the Executive, 
and to be passed upon only by Congress. The Constitution has undergone no change, 
the people have made no amendment to it; it stands now as it stood in the time of 
Mr. Jefferson. Whence, then, has Mr. Polk derived his authority to precipitate 
measures which must lead directly to war—Congress being in session—without taking 
their advice, or even deigning to inform them of Avhat he proposed to do? But, sir, 
at all events, there is not the slightest reason to doubt, as I apprehend, that the move¬ 
ment of the troops upon the Rio Grande was the act which produced war. There had 
been, previously, threatenings on the part of Mexico. There had been exactly that 
state of feeling which was likely to result in war. But there had been no war, and 
iny conviction is clear, that if our troops had remained quiet at Corpus Christi— 
where they had a right to remain, on the ground so strongly put by the Senator from 
Maryland, (Mr. Pearce,) that it belonged to Texas by virtue of her revolution, and 
was then in her possession—there would have been no war. But, at all events, sup¬ 
posing that war would have been produced in some other manner, or by some other 
movement, though our troops had remained, which is mere matter of speculation, yet 
it cannot be denied that, in point of fact, this war—the war in which we are now en¬ 
gaged—was the immediate result of the movement of our troops upon the Del Norte, 
and of nothing else. That movement w r as an act of war; it was, at all events, an act 
directly tending to change the relations of the two countries from peace to war; and, 
-therefore, an act which the President could not lawfully or constitutionally perform.. 

The next proposition which I lay down is, that this war, thus resulting from an act 
of the President, has been prosecuted by him from the commencement with a view 
to the conquest—the permanent conquest—of at least New Mexico and Upper and 
Lower California. I beg the attention of the Senate while I attempt to demonstrate 
this proposition from public documents. First, sir, I will call the attention of the 
Senate to the instructions given by the Secretary of War on the 3d of June, 1846, 
to General Kearney: 

“Should you conquer and take possession of New Mexico and Upper California, or considerable places 
in either, you will establish temporary civil governments therein — abolishing all arbitrary restrictions that 
may exist, so far as it may be done with safety. In performing this duty, it would be wise and pru¬ 
dent to continue in their employment all such of the existing officers as are known to be friendly to the 
TJ. States, and will take the oath of allegiance to them. The duties at the custom-houses ought, at once, 
to be reduced to such a rate as may be barely sufficient to maintain the necessary officers, without 
yielding any revenue to the government. You may assure the people of those provinces that it is the 
wish and design of the United States to provide for them a free government, with the least possible delay, 
similar to that which exists in our Territories. They will then be called on to exercise the rights of 
freemen in electing their own representatives to the territorial legislature. It is foreseen that what re¬ 
lates to the civil government will be a difficult and unpleasant part of your duty, and much must ne¬ 
cessarily be left to your own discretion.”— Doc. H. R. 19— 2d sess., 29ffi Congress — p. 5. 

In further proof of this, I read the instructions given by the Navy Department to 
Commodore Sloat, 12th July, 1846: 

“ The object of the United States is, under its rights as a belligerent nation, to possess itself entirely 
of Upper California. 

“The object of the United States has reference to ultimate peace with Mexico; and if, at that 
peace, the basis of the uti possidetis shall be established, the government expects, through your forces, 
to be found in actual possession of Upper California. 

“ This will bring with it the necessity of a civil administration. Such a government should be es¬ 
tablished under your protection ; and, in selecting persons to hold office, due respect should be had to 
the wishes of the people of California, as well as to the. actual possessors of authority in that province. 
It may be proper to require an oath of allegiance to the United States from those who are intrusted 
with authority. You will also assure the people of California of the protection of the United States. 

“ After you shall have secured Upper California, if your force is sufficient, you will take possession, 
and keep the harbors on the Gulf of California as far down, at least, as Guaymas. But this is not to 
interfere with the pe/nnanent occupation of Upper California.”— Doc. H. R. 19 — 2d sess., '20th Con¬ 
gress — pp. 81-'2. 

* 

Then, sir, on the 13th of August, we have instructions from the Navy Depart¬ 
ment to Commodore Stockton, or the commanding officer, in the Pacific: 

“ You will take immediate possession of Upper California, especially of the three ports of San Fran" 
.eisco, Monterey, and San Diego, so that if the treaty of peace should be made on the basis of the t it* 
possidetis, it may leave California to the United States.” ******* 

“ Having provided for the full possession of Upper California, the next point of importance is the 


5 


Gulf of California. From the best judgment I can form, you should take possession of the port of 
Guaymas. The progress of our arms will probably be such that, in conjunction with land forces, you 
will be able to hold possession of Guaymas, and so to reduce all the country north of it on the 
gulf.” — Doc. II. It. 19— 2il scss., 29f/i Congress — p. 82. 

Now, sir, in order to understand the scope and bearing of these orders still more 
clearly, let us see what was done under them by the officers to whom they were ad¬ 
dressed. In a letter of General Kearney to the Adjutant General of the 24th Au¬ 
gust, 1846, written from Santa Fe, he says: 

“ On the 22d I issued a proclamation claiming the whole of New Mexico , xcilh its then boundaries, as 
a texritory of the United States of America, and taking it under our protection.”— Doc. 11. R. 19—2 d 
sess., 20th Congress — pp. 19, 20. 

In another part of the same letter he says: 

“ On my return (which will be in two or three weeks) a civil government shall be organized, and 
the officers appointed for it; after which I will be ready to start for Upper California, which 1 hope may 
be by the latter end of next month ; and in such case I shall expect to have possession of that depart¬ 
ment by the close of November.” 

Then we have General Kearney’s proclamation, in which he announces his inten¬ 
tion to hold New Mexico as a part of the United States, under the name of the ‘‘■'ter¬ 
ritory of New Mexico:” 

“ As, by the act of the republic of Mexico, a state of war exists between that government and the 
United States ; and as the undersigned, at the head of his troops, on the 18th instant, took possession 
of Santa Fe, the capital of the department of New Mexico, he now announces his intention to hold the 
department , with its original boundaries, (on both sides of the Del Norte.) as a part of the United 
States, and under the name of ‘the Territory of New Mexico.’” ****** 

“ The undersigned has instructions from his Government to respect the religious institutions of New 
Mexico—to protect the property of the church—to cause the worship of those belonging to it to be un¬ 
disturbed, and their religious rights in the amplest manner preserved to them; also to protect the per¬ 
sons and property of all quiet and peaceable inhabitants within its boundaries against their enemies, 
the Eutaws, the Navarjoes, and others; and when he assures all that it will be his pleasure, as well 
as his duty, to comply with those instructions, he calls upon them to exert themselves in preserving 
order, in promoting concord, and in maintaining the authority and efficacy of the laws. 

“ And he requires of those who have left their homes, and taken up arms against the troops of the 
United States, to return forthwith to them, or else they will be considered as enemies and traitors, sub¬ 
jecting their persons to punishment, and their property to seizure and confiscation, for the benefit of the pub¬ 
lic treasury. 

“ It is the wish and intention of the United States to provide for New Mexico a free government, 
with the least possible delay, similar to those in the United Stales ; and the people of New Mexico will 
then be called on to exercise the rights of freemen in electing their own representatives to the terx'itorial 
legislature. But, until this can be done, the laws hitherto in existence will be continued until changed 
or modified by competent authority ; and those persons holding office will continue in the same for 
the present, provided they will consider themselves good citizens, and are willing to take the oath of alle¬ 
giance to the United States. 

“ The United States hereby absolves all persons residing within the boundaries of New Mexico 
from any further allegiance to the republic of Mexico, and hereby claims them as citizens of the United 
Slates. Those who remain quiet and peaceable will be considered good citizens, and receive protec¬ 
tion—those who are found in arms, or instigating others against the United States, will be considered 
traitors, and treated accordingly. ”— Doc. II. It. 19— 2d Sess., 29 th Congress — pp. 20, 21. 

What was the action of Commodore Sloat ? How did he interpret and understand 
the orders he had received? We have distinct information upon this point, commu¬ 
nicated in the proclamation of Commodore Sloat to the people of California. He says: 

“ Henceforward California will be a portion of the United Stales, and its peaceable inhabitants will 
enjoy the same rights and privileges they now enjoy, together with the privilege of choosing their 
own magistrates and other officers, for the administration of justice among themselves, and the same 
protection will be extended to them as to any other State in the Union. They will also enjoy a per¬ 
manent government.” — Doc. H. R. 19— 2d Sess., 22th Congress, p. 1U2. 

And in a general order of July 7, 1846, he says: 

“ It is not only our duty to take California, but to preserve it afterwards, as a part of the United States , 
at all hazards.” 

What was the understanding of Commodore Stockton? In an address to the peo¬ 
ple of California, of the 17th August, 1846, he says: 

“ The Territory of California now belongs to the United States, and will be governed, as soon as cir- 
■cumstances will permit, by officers and laws similar to those by which the other Territories of the 
United States are regulated and protected.”— Doc. H. R. 19—2 d Sess., 29 th Congress, page 107. 

Again, in a proclamation, he says: 

“I, Robert F. Stockton, commander-in-chief of the United States forces in the Pacific ocean, and. 


6 


Governor of the Territory of California, and commander-in-chief of the army of the same, do hereby 
make known to all men, that, having by right of conquest taken possession of that territory known 
by the name of Upper and Lower California, do now declare it to be a Territory of the United States, 
under the name of the Territory of California.”— Doc. H. R. 19—2 d Sess 29 th Congress , page 109. 

Now, sir, it is impossible, I think, to read what was done—what w r as reported by 
our officers to the President as having been done by them—without seeing that they 
understood and acted on his instructions, as designed to make a permanent conquest 
of such portions of Mexican territory as they were instructed to take possession of. 
There is not one word said in the instructions—nothing declared in the actions of the 
officers obeying those instructions—wffiich referred or appeared to refer to a military 
occupation of those territories, for the purpose of compelling Mexico to do us justice 
for the wrongs w 7 e had sustained at her hands; on the contrary, the instructions to 
General Kearney, before read, require him to establish temporary civil governments 
therein , and authorize him to assure the people of the design of the United States to 
provide for them a free government similar to that which exists in our territories. 
These officers'clearly understood that they were tt) take possession of and hold those 
territories as a portion of the United States. 

They accordingly took possession. They organized governments—and they acted 
in all respects as if from that time forward these territories ceased to be the proper¬ 
ty of Mexico, and became, for all time, the property of the United States. 

Now 7 , did they understand their instructions aright? Why, sir, in the message of 
the President of the United States, communicating those documents to us, there is 
something said which implies a disavowal of something that was done; an intimation 
that in some respects the instructions had been exceeded. 

These documents contain all the “ orders or instructions” to any military or naval officer of the 
Government, “ in relation to the establishment or organization of civil government in any portion of 
the territory of Mexico.” ******* 

“ Among the documents accompanying the report of the Secretary of War will be found “ a form 
of government” “ established and organized” by the military commander who conquered and occu¬ 
pied with his forces the territory of New Mexico. This document was received at the War Depart¬ 
ment in the latter part of last month ; and, as will be perceived by the report of the Secretary of War, 
was not, for the reason stated by that officer, brought to my notice until after my annual message of 
the 8th instant was communicated to Congress. It is declared on its face to be “ a temporary govern¬ 
ment of the said territory;” but there are portions of it which purport to establish and organize a 
permanent territorial government of the United States over the territory, and to impart to its inhab¬ 
itants political rights, which, under the Constitution of the United States, can be enjoyed permanent¬ 
ly only by citizens of the United States. These have not been approved and recognised by me.” 

The Secretary of War, in the report referred to by the President, states that “the 
organic law of the territory of New Mexico was not received until the ‘23d of No¬ 
vember; and, because of its being voluminous, was not read by him or submitted to 
the President until after his annual message was sent in.” 

It appears, then, upon the statement of the President of the United States, and 
the report of the Secretary of War, that the u organic law ” established by General 
Kearney for the government of the territory of New Mexico, in consequence of its 
late arrival—late with reference to the then succeeding session—had not been read 
by him and submitted to the President, and his orders taken with respect to it. 
Well, now 7 , that is the only one of the documents of which it is intimated that the 
contents were not know r n by the proper department, and communicated to the 
President, and approved and sanctioned by him. Therefore it is a reasonable, just, 
and necessary conclusion, that every one of the other documents, except the one 
thus specified and taken out by the exception, had been read, considered, and ap¬ 
proved. And, further, even in reference to General Kearney’s u organic law ,” no¬ 
thing is excepted by the President but this: that he undertook to make that law 7 a 
u permanenV' > form of government; wffiereas the President intended a permanent oc¬ 
cupation, with a permanent government to be finally settled by Congress, leaving 
to the military officer the establishment of a temporary government only. No ex¬ 
ception was taken by the President to General Kearney’s proclamation of the 24th 
August, declaring his intention to hold New Mexico “as a part of the United 
States” —none to his requiring all the inhabitants to return to their homes. 
on pain of being considered traitors, and subjecting their persons to punishment , 
£ind their property to confiscation —none to his requiring the office-holders to consider 


7 


themselves “citizens of, and to take an oath of allegiance to, the United 
States” —none to his declaring the intention of the United States to provide a 
civil government for-New Mexico with a territorial legislature —none to his 
absolving, in the name of the United States, the inhabitants of that country from 
their allegiance to the republic of Mexico—and, finally, none to his claiming all per¬ 
sons residing within that territory as citizens of the United States , and denouncing the 
doom of traitors against all of them who should be found in arms against us. To no¬ 
thing that was done, by either Commodore Sloat or Commodore Stockton, in regard 
to these matters, is any exception taken; yet, Commodore Sloat proclaimed to the ; 
inhabitants of California, as early as July, 1846, that thenceforward Califor¬ 
nia 'would be “a portion of the United States,” and would enjoy “a perma¬ 
nent government.” And, in his general orders, issued July 7th, he says to the 
troops who were about to be. landed on the coast, that it was their duty not only 
to take California, but to preserve it afterwards, as “a part of the United 
States,” at all hazards. And Commodore Stockton, by his proclamation, makes 
known to all men, that he has by right of conquest taken possession of the territory 
known as Uppet' and Lowei' California, and declares it to be u the territory of the 
United States,” under the name of “the territory of California.” And 
again, on the 17th of August, he declares that “the territory of California now be¬ 
longs to the United States, and will be governed, as soon as circumstances permit, 
by officers and la vs similar to those by which other territories of the United States 
are regulated and governed.” 

Here, then, we see officers acting under the authority of the President, without re¬ 
buke from him, seizing and establishing civil governments in New Mexico and Cali¬ 
fornia, as the permanent territories of the United States; claiming their inhabitants as 
our citizens, promising them a permanent form of government, and denouncing them 
as traitors if they should take up arms against the United States. What is this but 
conquest? What is it but seizure and permanent annexation by force of arms? This, 
then, sir, I presume the President designed to do at the very time when he called 
upon the country for a recognition of this war, and for men and money to prose¬ 
cute it. No intimation is given to us in any of the correspondence—if he did not then 
entertain the design—at what time the change took place in the Presidential mind. 
In June, July, and August, from the Navy and the War Departments to all the of¬ 
ficers charged with carrying into execution the wishes of the President in the prose¬ 
cution of the war, we have the same general tone of instructions, and we have all 
these officers seizing territories and treating them as a permanent part of the United 
States. And to these proceedings the President takes no exception! He does not 
intimate, by the slightest breath of disapprobation, that the zeal of these comman¬ 
ders has exceeded the purpose of the Executive! 

1 must suppose, then, that conquest was the object for which the President prose¬ 
cuted the war from the beginning, and not indemnity. Why, sir, is it not a singular 
mode of securing indemnity, if such had been his purpose? At the commencement 
of the war, what did he want indemnity for ? Mexico, it is true, owed to our citi¬ 
zens money. If the object had been to seize the Mexican territory, and simply to 
hold it by military occupation, in order to compel Mexico to recognise and discharge 
her debts to us, why is nothing of this kind mentioned in these instructions ? Why 
did these officers treat the territories of which they obtained possession as a con¬ 
quest, which was to become a portion of the United States ? Why is it that no inti¬ 
mation was given to them or to us that the object had been misunderstood—that the 
possession which they held of these territories was a sort of mortgage, or in the na¬ 
ture of a security, until the payment of the debts due to us by Mexico ? And, above 
all, if indemnity, if enforcing payment of what was due to our citizens, and not 
conquest, or permanent annexation, was the object of the war, why did the Secre¬ 
tary, as early as the 3d of June, 1846, authorize General Kearney to assure the peo¬ 
ple of New Mexico and Upper California that it was then “the wish and design of 
the United States to provide for them a free government, similar to that which ex¬ 
ists in our territories?” 

But this view of the subject, I think, becomes still stronger when we consider 
the mode in which the President carried on his negotiations. Mr. Slidell was sent 


8 


to Mexico in the month of November. I believe that his credentials bear date on 
the 10th of that month. Well, when he went to Mexico, he was not received. 
Why was he not ? The President tells you that Mexico, in spite of her plighted 
word, insultingly refused to receive our minister. Well, now, it is plain to me—it 
is evident, when adverting to the correspondence which took place between our 
consul at Mexico and Senor Pena y Pena—that it never was the design of the then 
executive government of Mexico to receive a “ minister resident” from the United 
States. On the 15th October, 1845, that minister writes to our consul, Mr. Black, 
“my government is disposed to receive the commissioner of the United States who 
may come to this capital with full powers from his government to settle the pres¬ 
ent dispute.” And afterwards, Mr. Slidell having arrived, the objection to his re¬ 
ception was that his credentials appointed him “a minister to reside near the gov¬ 
ernment of Mexico, just as if there had been no suspension of the diplomatic and 
friendly relations between the two governments ;” while the Mexican government 
understood it to be a special mission, confined to the Texas question. And when, 
to this objection, Mr. Black replied that Mr. Slidell was authorized to settle all the 
questions in dispute , Senor Pena y Pena said that “his credentials had not reference 
to any question in dispute, but merely as a minister to reside near the Mexican gov¬ 
ernment;” and, referring to the great caution and circumspection necessary on their 
part, assured him that the government itself “was well disposed to arrange all differ¬ 
ences. ”— Doc. H. R. 196—2 d Sess., 29 tk Congress, pp. 12 and 24. 

It is impossible to read the correspondence without seeing that the persons ad¬ 
ministering the government of Mexico were exceedingly anxious to settle the ques¬ 
tion of boundary; and that, in order to enable them to do so, nothing might be done 
further to arouse or irritate the jealous feelings of the Mexican nation; and that, 
therefore, we should send them a commissioner only, with power to settle the pend¬ 
ing dispute. Well, we were not satisfied with that. They had promised to receive 
a commissioner; the President tendered them a minister resident. To such a min¬ 
ister they objected, because he could not be received without arousing excited feel¬ 
ings and endangering their continuance in power, if not their personal safety. But 
that is not all. Long before Mr. Slidell’s mission was set on foot, on the 15th of 
June, 1845, the acting Secretary of War writes to General Taylor in these terms: 

“The point of your ultimate destination is the western frontier of Texas, where you will select 
and occupy, on or near the Rio Grande del Norte, such a site as will consist with the health of the 
troops, and will be best adapted to repel invasion, and protect what, in the event of annexation, will be 
our western border.” 

Now, sir, here is an order as early as the 15th of June, 1845, in which General 
Taylor is directed to select a position on or near the Rio del Norte , claimed as the 
western frontier of Texas, which should have these conditions—it should con¬ 
sist with the health of the troops, and be the point best adapted to repel invasion, 
and to protect what was to be our western border. Now, it will be sufficiently ob¬ 
vious from these documents, I think, that it was the intention of the President that 
General Taylor should move to the left bank of the Rio Grande. General Taylor 
so understood it, for, in a despatch of his dated 4th October, 1845, he says: 

“ It will be recollected that the instructions of June 15, issued by Mr. Bancroft, then acting Secre¬ 
tary of War, directed me to 1 select and occupy, on or near the Rio Grande, such a site as will cor) _ 
sist with the health of the troops, and will be best adapted to repel invasion,’ &c. Brazos Santiago 
is the nearest entrance to the mouth of the Rio Grande, and Point Isabel, within that entrance 
twenty-one miles from Matamoras, would have fulfilled more completely than any other positio’ n i ie 
conditions imposed by the Secretary.” 

Here General Taylor says expressly, that he understood that he would more com¬ 
pletely carry out the order by taking a position at Point Isabel. Why did he not ? 
He immediately assigns the reason : 

“ But we had no artillery, no engineer force, or appliances, and but a moderate amount of infantry; 
and the occupation of Point Isabel, under these circumstances, and with at least the possibility of re¬ 
sistance from the Mexicans, might have compromised the safety of the command. I, therefore, de¬ 
termined to take up the next accessible position in the rear, which is the mouth of the Nueces river.” 

As early, then, as the 15th of June, an order was issued to General Taylor, which 
he understood to be an order to take up his position on the left bank of the Rio 
Grande. An order which he thought would have been best complied with by es- 



9 


tablishing his position at Point Isabel. And he informed the Department, on the 4th 
of October, that this would have been done, but that he had not the requisite force 
to undertake it. Well, sir, did he understand the order rightly ? Let us see. On 
the 16th the Secretary writes to him : 

“ You will approach as near the western boundary of Texas (the Rio Grande) as circumstances will 
permit.” 

And the final order of the 13th of January, 1846, about the meaning of which there 
is no dispute, which all admit was an imperative one to General Taylor to advance 
to the left bank of the Rio Grande, is couched in exactly the same terms as the two 
orders preceding it. He is directed “to advance, and occupy positions on or near the 
left bank of the Rio del Norte.” There is no intimation at any time to General Tay¬ 
lor, after the despatch of the 4th of October, that he was mistaken in the construc¬ 
tion which he put upon the order of the 15th of June. On the contrary, after that 
despatch must have been received—nearly three months after it was written—when 
it is the design of the Department that he should occupy the same position which 
he w^as directed, according to his understanding to do previously, he is directed 
to do it by a repetition of the order issued in June, 1845, almost in the same terms. 
Well, now, what is the inference from this ? If, in June, 1845, General Taylor had 
been provided with a train of artillery, if he had had a suitable apparatus of engi¬ 
neers, he would, under the order of June 15th, have advanced, and taken posses¬ 
sion of Point Isabel, expelling the Mexicans from that position, and placing it un¬ 
der the control of the United States. If he had done so, would he not have been 
obeying the orders of this Government ? Was it not wha^ it was designed by this 
Government that he should do, if the means h^d been in his possession ? It is ev¬ 
ident it was so designed, because, when they had given him the means and the 
same order, he assumes the position with the entire approbation and support of the 
Government. Now, sir, was not this a singular mode of proceeding, if the object 
had been to preserve peace, and restore friendly feelings between the two nations 
by amicable negotiation ? Offence having been taken by Mexico for some cause, 
real or supposed, before the President sends his mission of peace, a month before 
he sends it, an order is repeated, the object and scope of which was to place a milita¬ 
ry force wfithin the territory claimed and occupied by Mexico. Now, is it not ob¬ 
vious that, if this order had been fully carried into effect, it was calculated to rouse 
the indignation of Mexico, and to prevent the settlement of the differences between 
the two countries ? If negotiation was desirable, if the President himself desired to 
settle the differences upon amicable terms, would he have preceded a mission of 
peace by an aggression upon the power with which he desired to restore friendly re¬ 
lations ? Let it be remembered, that I have shown to the Senate already that the 
President considered (we have it in the orders transmitted to his officers) that the 
expulsion of the Mexicans from the left bank of the Rio Grande—the removal of 
their settlement—was an act of aggression, a hostile act, an act to be avoided in or¬ 
der to insure the continuance of peace, and which nothing would justify but the oc¬ 
currence of actual war. 

Thus, it seems to me, that not only did the President bring on the war by an un¬ 
lawful and unconstitutional act, but that he has prosecuted i + for the purpose of con¬ 
quest, and of conquest alone. But this purpose the President did not make known 
to Congress. He did not submit (as he should have done) to the judgment of Con¬ 
gress, whether they were willing to prosecute a war for the purpose of making a per¬ 
manent conquest of the territory of a neighboring republic. On the contrary, he 
seems carefully to have concealed his design from Congress. In his special message 
of the 4th of August, 1846, to the Senate, he says expressly : 

“ The chief difficulty to be anticipated in the negotiation is the adjustment of the boundary between 
the parties, by a line which shall at once be satisfactory and convenient to both, and such as neither 
will hereafter be inclined to disturb. This is the best mode of securing perpetual peace and good neigh¬ 
borhood between the two republics. Should the Mexican Government, in order to accomplish these 
objects, be willing to cede any portion of their territory to the U. States, we ought to pay them a fair equiv¬ 
alent; a just and honorable peace, and not conquest, being our purpose in the prosecution of the war.” 

Now, what notion the President attaches to the term “conquest,” I do not know! 
To me it seems plain, that what had been directed to be done before this message 


10 


•was written, and what was afterwards done by the military and naval officers of the 
Government, not only without rebuke, but with the express recognition of the Presi¬ 
dent of the United States, is direct, clear, and unquestionable conquest. I under¬ 
stand conquest, in this connexion, as meaning the seizure of the territory of another 
natiorrby force, whether it is to be held by force, or whether a consent to our retain¬ 
ing it is to be extorted by the power of our arms. 

Again, sir, the President’s message at the last session of Congress expressly de¬ 
clares, that “the war has not been waged with a view to conquest;” that “the war 
will continue to be prosecuted with vigor, as the best means of securing peace;” and 
that “it is deemed proper to hold military possession of all the provinces which have 
been taken, until a definitive treaty of peace shall have been concluded and ratified 
by the two countries.” And I recollect well, sir, at the last session, when a resolu¬ 
tion was moved by a member of this body, (Mr. Westcott,) directing the Committee 
on Territories to consider as to the propriety of establishing some species of legisla¬ 
tive authority over the territories of the enemy which had been taken into our pos¬ 
session, the honorable Senator from Missouri, (Mr. Benton,) who is not now in his' 
seat, in his strong manner, denounced in his place the proposition, on the ground that 
it attributed to the President of the United States the assumption that those portions 
of Mexico were territories of the United States. This the honorable Senator charac¬ 
terized as an absurdity. 

Mr. Westcott. —Monstrosity. 

Mr. Badger. —Yes, monstrosity. But, sir, this year the tone of the message is 
materially changed. The President has got a new phrase. He now says, not that 
he is not carrying on the war for the purpose of conquest, but “it has never been con¬ 
templated by me, as an object of the war, to make a permanent conquest of the Re¬ 
public of Mexico, or to annihilate her separate existence as an independent nation.” 
This is quite consistent with a design of temporarily conquering the whole, and per¬ 
manently conquering a part. Indeed, he expressly informs us, that New Mexico 
and the Californias “should never be surrendered to Mexico.” Now, it seems to 
me that it was the duty of the President of the United States to have explained to 
Congress from the first what his real purpose was. If he intended, at the last session, 
to actually conquer and retain by force—to retain, under all circumstances, the 
territory then acquired from Mexico—he should have so told Congress. But he told 
us no such thing. On the contrary, he leaves us to suppose that, though these pro¬ 
ceedings seem to look like conquest, yet still, in the Presidential mind, the conquest 
of any part of Mexico was not his purpose. Now, sir, we are distinctly informed 
that the President is of opinion that we should retain, at all hazards, New Mexico 
and the two Californias. 

The next proposition which strikes me as being material to a just determination of 
the course to be pursued in reference to the bill now under the consideration of the 
Senate, is this, that the present plan of the war, as announced by the Secretary of the 
War Department in his communication to the President, if carried out, must irre¬ 
sistibly lead to the conquest of the whole of Mexico; and I think we may reasonably 
conclude, judging of the future by the past, that if at this session Congress shall place 
in the hands of the President all the means he has asked, we shall, at the next session, 
find the whole of Mexico entirely overrun, and at the mercy of our troops; and we 
shall then have a message informing us that the President is of opinion that Cono-ress. 
should not consent, under any circumstances, to surrender any portion of the Mexi¬ 
can republic. 

The Secretary of War, in his report, speaks of three plans. Why, sir, there are 
but two, in fact, if I am capable of understanding what seems to be tolerably plain 
language. Human ingenuity cannot make of it more than two plans, although he 
has numerically divided it into three. What are they ? 

“Our further operations must, in my opinion, be conducted in one of the three following modes: First, 
to take and hold an indemnity line; to recede from all places and positions now occupied in advance of 
it, and cease from all aggressive'operations beyond that line. Second, to overrun the whole country, 
and hold .#11 the principal places in it by permanent garrisons ; and third , to retain what we now possess 
open the lines of communication into the interior, and extend our operations to other important places’ 
as our means and the prospect of advantages shall indicate, keeping a disposable force always ready’ 


11 


within approachable ljmits, to annoy the enemy, to seize supplies, enforce contributions, and frustrate 
his efforts to collect means and assemble troops for the purpose of protracting the war.” 

Well, now, sir, is it not strange that numbers two and three shall be considered 
separate and distinct plans? The second is to overrun the whole country, and hold 
all the principal places in it by establishing garrisons therein. What is the third? 
It is to retain what we possess, to open a communication with the interior, and to take 
other places, according as our means may enable us. Does he mean under the sec¬ 
ond plan to take more than our means will enable us to take? Under the first of the 
two latter of the Secretary’s plans, he proposes to take all the principal places in 
Mexico; and, under the second of them, he proposes to keep what we have got and 
get all we can. Well, now, the President has adopted the third of the plans reported 
by the Secretary, as enumerated by him, upon which the war is to be carried on, and 
it is upon that basis that supplies are asked, and particularly the ten regiments pro¬ 
posed to be raised by this bill, to assist in carrying out the operations of this war in 
accordance with the view's of the Secretary. 

Well, sir, believing, as I do, that the necessary consequence of furnishing the 
means which are required by this bill will be to enable the Secretary of War, under 
the direction of the President, to make apermanent conquest of the wdiole of Mexico,. 
I cannot vote for it. I am opposed to augmenting the forces for such a purpose. 

How is the conquest of Mexico to be effected? How is a peace to be brought about, 
under this mode of prosecuting a war, except by the seizure and subjugation of the 
whole country? I cannot vote, sir, for any plan by which Mexico is to be conquered 
and annexed! Because, in the first place, it would be grossly unjust. It would, in 
my judgment, according to my convictions of right, be a high and flagrant w r rong for 
us to seize upon and incorporate the territories of that republic into our owm. I 
believe it would fix a stigma upon the character of this people which all successive 
ages w T ould not be able to w'ipe out. 

No oblivion that thousands of years could throw over it, no darkness with w r hich 
the lapse of ages could surround it, would prevent the flagrant enormity of such a 
measure from being apparent to posterity. How could our future historians and poets 
be able to relate the tale of this country’s doings in regard to this feeble, unfortunate, 
degraded republic? In vain would the attempt be made to close the eyes of mankind 
against the gross injustice of this procedure, by throwing around it the flimsy pretences 
which patriotism might suggest. Sir, now we have the dazzling blaze of military glory 
cast over these operations, and behold them in a light w'hich may mislead and de- 
ceive us; but when the excitement of the present day shall have passed aw r ay, and 
they shall be looked at in the clear light of history, and their character pronounced by 
the voice of truth, there will be a universal verdict of condemnation given by mankind. 
My deliberate conviction is, that in the judgment of posterity, if we should consum¬ 
mate such a wrong as this, the crimson guilt of the partition of Poland would pale 
into absolute w'hiteness in the comparison. The one, it would be said, was an act 
perpetrated by monarchs, hereditary rulers, men born to govern, and who had been 
taught to regard others merely as the ministers of their pleasures, or the instrumen¬ 
tality of increasing their power, and in whose behalf it might be urged that they only 
followed the example of their predecessors in seeking, by whatever means, to in¬ 
crease their power; but in the other case, it would be declared that the actw'as com¬ 
mitted by a republican government, based on principles of equal rights, and professing 
friendship and good will to all mankind, seeking for national happiness, and national 
glory in the pursuit of the peaceful arts, engaged in the establishment of justice and tran¬ 
quility, and regarding the w'hole human race as brethren in blood, entitled to their hu¬ 
manity and consideration. The writers of that distant age would find that then, as ever r 

“ Nor florid prose, nor honied lies of rhyme, 

Can blazon evil deeds or consecrate a crime.” 

I am not w'illing that my country should now commit this irreparable wrong, and soil 
herself with this ineffaceable stain. 

I am opposed to the seizure and annexation of Mexico, because it is as unwise as 
unjust. I know there are some w r ho entertain a different opinion, but it does seem 
clear to me that the accomplishment of such a measure as the incorporation of Mex¬ 
ico—whether her people are to be introduced into a community of rights with us, or 


12 


to be held as a degraded and conquered province—whether they are to sustain towards 
us the relation of the territories we have heretofore had, or to remain in a state of 
perpetual pupilage—whatever the mode and form in which their future condition and 
character are to be established—must inevitably, in the hour of its completion, doom 
the Union to certain destruction. 

I was glad to hear the Senator from South Carolina, farthest from me, (Mr. Cal¬ 
houn,) take strong and decided ground against the absorption of Mexico and the de¬ 
struction of her nationality.* I was glad to hear his voice raised against what in my 
view would be one of the greatest of crimes, one of the greatest of political blunders. 
But, I wonder, Mr. President, that it did not strike the honorable Senator, that the 
injustice of seizing upon the whole by force was an injustice but in degree superior 
to seizing upon any part by force—that though the enormity of absorbing the whole 
of the Mexican territory strikes us with astonishment and horror, it is but because the 
human mind is more strongly affected and impressed by subjects which appear large; 
yet, that, in truth, the seizure of one foot of Mexican soil is just as much an invasion 
of the eternal principles of right, as much a sacrifice of the claims of justice and the 
obligations which we owe our fellow-men, as the seizure of the whole. I am op¬ 
posed to the conquest, by arms, of Mexico, or any part of Mexico. I am opposed to 
wresting from her one inch of her domain, by the exertion of any force which shall 
control her will and compel an apparently voluntary surrender, while, in reality, the 
soul of the country tenaciously adheres to that with which it parts. I am opposed to 
the commission by this country of such an act of injustice, for the attainment of any 
object, be it great or small; believing, as I fulty do, that a pure, unsullied reputation 
amongst the nations of the earth, is of more importance to us than any acquisition that 
the wide w T orld can furnish. 

It has been said—it w r as said on this floor at the time when the resolutions of the 
honorable Senator from South Carolina were before the Senate—that the proposition 
contained in them, which condemns the conquest of Mexico and the destruction of 
her nationality, was a proposition the assertion of which would be idle and fruitless, 
because the destruction of the nationality of Mexico is contemplated by no one. At 
the time w'hen I heard the statement made, I entertained the same opinion, and ex¬ 
pressed that opinion to the Senator himself.—(Mr. Calhoun here nodded assent.) 
But, an attentive consideration of the report of the Secretary of War, and the means 
demanded by the President—a consideration of the important fact disclosed this day, 
that the President has refused upon this subject to communicate his views and plans 
in the further prosecution of the war—the fact that he has proceeded from a disa¬ 
vowal of all intended conquest to a simple intimation that he has never desired to con¬ 
quer Mexico or destroy her nationality—these things, sir, have convinced me of the 
probability that the Government is now thinking, at some no distant day, tactually to 
make the movement which the resolution of the Senator from South Carolina de¬ 
nounces. I w r as struck, sir, with the account of a recent celebration in this city of 
the anniversary of the battle of New Orleans. It was held here on the 11th instant, 
and I noticed that an honorable and distinguished member of this body (Mr. Dick¬ 
inson,) made an address on the occasion to the company then assembled, concluding 
with a sentiment which goes far ahead of the annexation of the whole of Mexico. 
He gave as a toast—“ A more perfect Union, embracing the whole of the North 
American Continent. ” I did not observe that the sentiment w r as received with dis¬ 
approbation. I saw no'mention of any qualification of the sentiment by him or others; 
but there it stands, as the declared opinion of a representative of the great “empire 
State” upon this floor—a State which, of all others, is able to succeed by physical 
force in the accomplishment of such a design—a design looking to a more “ perfect 
union,” not in the closer association of the members of this Republic—not in a 
strengthening of our social relations—not in an increase of mutual attachment—but a 

* After my remarks were made Mr. Calhoun informed me I had mistaken his meaning entirely— 
that it was not his purpose to propose a seizure of any Mexican territory, to be retained by us at all 
hazards, but only to assume possession of such part of her ten 1 .'lory as should fall within bis defen¬ 
sive line, to be held as a basis on which to negotiate, and to abide the disposition of a treaty of peace. 
This note is added in justice to that honorable Senator and to myself. 




13 


more perfect union, which is to embrace in one with us the whole of the North Ameri¬ 
can continent, including Mexico on the south, and the entire British provinces on the 
north. When I see propositions of that sort coming from gentlemen of such high charac¬ 
ter, known intelligence, and distinguished position before the country, I cannot resist 
the conclusion, that such sentiments may have an echo in the hearts of thousands. 

But there are other difficulties in my mind. I consider the further prosecution of 
this war upon the plan proposed by the President of the United States as dangerous 
to the liberties of the country. 1 was struck by the remark made by the honorable 
Senator from South Carolina, (Mr. Calhoun,) that no one now hears, as in the early 
days of the republic, the question, “how will this measiAe affect our liberty?” Now 
we sit down and calculate calmly what amount of military force or means it is neces¬ 
sary to put into the hands of the President to accomplish a certain object. We ask, 
whether we shall send him further into Mexico at the head of a hundred thousand 
men, with all the means of this country at his command by our voluntary vote, and all 
the means of Mexico by military and violent seizure, and yet, as the honorable Senator 
said, there is no inquiry as to the effect of all this upon our liberties. That remark 
excited in my mind a train of thought which led me to the conclusion that there is 
great and just ground of apprehension, if this measure is adopted, that the liberties 
of the country will be seriously endangered. Recollect what the President claimed 
on this subject, in his message of last session. All that has been done heretofore in 
Mexico, in the prosecution of this war, the President claims the right of doing, because 
we are the conqueror. But where, I ask, does he find any authority for exercising 
the rights of a conqueror? If he has them, it must be irrespective and independent 
of the Constitution of the United States? The conqueror has certain rights, and the 
President claims that these rights belong to him. For one, I do not admit that propo¬ 
sition. It is the Government of the United States, and the people of the United 
States represented in that Government, who are the conquerors in every war in which 
we are successful. Therefore, the rights which belong to the conqueror, according 
to the law of nations, belong no more to the President than they do to the lowest offi¬ 
cer who leads a band of men against the enemy. These rights belong to the country— 
to those who represent the sovereignty of the nation—who hold the war-power of the 
nation—to the Congress of the United States. The President has no other power, than 
as he is, by the Constitution, the chief military commander, whose duty it is to carry 
on war lor the purpose and to the ends declared by those who represent the sovereignty 
of the nation. But the President claims that he has a right to take possession, and that, 
having taken possession, he has a right to require from persons within the territory the 
oath of allegiance; submission to the regulations of his military officers; suspension of 
all resistance to his military authority, under pain of being treated as traitors, and 
made liable to punishment in their persons and in the confiscation of their goods; and 
to seize all the public property and revenues of the country. All this he claims as 
a conqueror, and wholly irrespective of any responsibility to Congress. I protest 
against any such doctrine. 

Having now stated my views of the commencement of this war, the manner and 
purposes of its prosecution, and the dangerous tendency of the Executive claims of 
power and projects of conquest, I come to the proposition before us. We are called 
upon to place at the command of the President ten regiments of regulars, in addition 
to the present military force. For what purpose? To carry on the war with Mexico?^ 
Upon what plan? Sir, the President declines to inform us upon what plan. 

Mr. Mangum, (in his seat.)—His friends here decline. 

Mr. Badger.— A few days ago, when this subject was under consideration by the 
Senate, and my friend from Kentucky (Mr. Crittenden) stated in his strong and 
forcible manner the present condition of Mexico, and the utter and absolute want of 
any necessity for this additional military force, a part of a communication from Gen. 
Scott was read by the Hon. Chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, as to the 
amount of force that would be required. Gen. Scott expressed the opinion that if 
certain purposes were contemplated it would be necessary to raise his force to fifty 
thousand men. I myself asked the Hon. Senator on what plan, system, or basis of 
operations for conducting the war, that estimate was made. The Senator declined 
to answer. Resolutions have been proposed in the other House, making inquiries, 


14 


and to these the President has declined giving any answer. A resolution was intro¬ 
duced in this body asking the President to communicate to us information on tills sub¬ 
ject, such as he might deem it consistent with the public interest to communicate to 
us, either confidentially or in open session. The President was asked to communicate 
to us information which would enable us to understand this monster project for the 
war, which requires this great addition to our military means; and this morning, by 
a vote of the majority of this body, it was determined that the question should not be 
put to the President, whether he has in his possession any information on this sub¬ 
ject, which he could, consistently with the public interests, communicate to us, either 
in open session or confidentially ? Thus, by the action of the President in the one case, 
and his friends in the other, information is denied us, and the war-making power of 
the country excluded from full knowledge of the plans for the prosecution of the war! 
Well, sir, what is the amount of our military force in Mexico, to which it is proposed 
to make this formidable addition? Without going into detail, I may safely say that 
that force at present amounts, in round numbers, to forty-five thousand rnen. Under 
existing laws, twenty thousand may be raised, to complete the complement of re¬ 
gulars and volunteers, making an aggregate of sixty-five thousand men. Deduct 
from that fifteen thousand, on account of the casualties to which the Senator from 
Michigan so often refers, and you have an army of fifty thousand men. Yet, it is 
now proposed to add to that force ten regiments of regulars, with a bill behind it to 
put at the disposal of the President twenty thousand volunteers, a force, including the 
sailors and marines co-operating with the troops, of not less than seventy-five thou¬ 
sand to eighty thousand effective men. What is to be accomplished by that force? 
Are there battles to be fought? That is distinctly disavowed. There is no expecta¬ 
tion, sir, of any more battles to be fought. For what, then, sir, do you ask these men? 
Why, the honorable gentleman from Michigan says, that he wishes, by the exhibition 
of a large force there, to produce “a great moral effect.” How? Why, he means to 
convince the Mexicans that they are unable to resist us! 

Well, sir, if they are able to withstand the logic of such fields as Buena Vista, Chu- 
rubusco, Contreras, and Cerro Gordo, think you, sir, that their incredulity will yield 
to the mere sight of a large body of men ? What, then, do you intend to do with 
this immense military force? They are to take possession and occupy the country it 
is said. And when they are there, what great object is it intended that they should 
accomplish, which this country desires to see accomplished? Do we w T ant peace? Is 
it not obvious to every one that peace cannot in this way be obtained ? If peace* 
could be coerced, we have done every thing that genius can contrive, and skill and 
gallantry execute, to accomplish it. I believe it may be said, without exaggeration, 
that the history of no country has presented such a succession of brilliant military 
achievements as we have gained in Mexico. As a single battle, nothing can be pro¬ 
duced equal to the last battle of Taylor; and as a succession of military operations, 
where can you find a parallel to the advance of Scott from Vera Cruz to the city of 
Mexico? If chastisement—defeat—overpowering, overwhelming defeat—were suffi¬ 
cient to bring Mexico to a disposition for peace, she would have been brought to that dis¬ 
position long ago. How, then, do you propose to accomplish it by your troops? 
Why, they are to take possession and occupy the whole country—-or, as the Secre¬ 
tary of War says, to keep that portion of it which we have got, and occupy all the 
.rest of which our means will allow us to take possession. Well, when you have got 
possession, what disposition of it do you propose to make? Posts and fortifications, I 
suppose, are to be established every where. You are to maintain all the strongholds 
of Mexico, and her valleys are to be every where marked by the signs of military 
occupation. How long is this state of things to continue? Until Mexico makes peace ! 
But, I pray you, is this the way in which the gentle sentiments of benevolence and 
peace arc to be instilled into the Mexican bosom? True, you may compel her to 
submit; you may prevent her from uttering a word of complaint; you may force her 
to feign compliance with your wishes; her active resentment may disappear ; and 
yet a dogged spirit of revenge, , and the intensest hate, will rankle and lurk beneath. 
The Latin poet has said with great propriety and force; 

“ Si te colo Sextae non omafco.” 


15 


—referring to a well known quality of our nature, in virtue of which the superiority 
which demands our admiration inclines us to withhold our love. If this be the ten¬ 
dency of that moral coercion, what may we hope from awe and terror ? Do we 
really expect, by renewed conquest, by devastated fields, by captured villages, by 
stormed fortresses, by occupying such positions that no Mexican can look forth 
without beholding evidence of the fall of his country and the presence of her con¬ 
queror, that a true peace is to be restored? Sir, no man should expect it. What is 
the situation of Mexico at this moment? She lies at your feet, bleeding, exhausted, 
panting. Do you wish to trample upon this enemy, already in the dust? Do you 
wish to crush the last remains of her vitality? I hope not, sir; but even if you do, 
you do not need this additional force. 

We received yesterday the copy of a general order of the 15th December, issued by 
General Scott, the first article of which proceeded to inform the army that it would 
spread itself over the republic of Mexico ; and which goes on to establish a system 
of internal regulation for the government of the country, and the collection and dis¬ 
bursement of the revenue. If, then, it be right and manly, in the present crippled 
condition of Mexico, to destroy her nationality, you have ample means to do so. But, 
ere you proceed to the accomplishment of such a purpose, will you not pause for a 
moment, and reflect upon the consequences which must inevitably follow ? If such 
a design be carried out, the destruction of our liberties is certain. You send forth 
the President with his eighty thousand men. He is told that he can support these men, 
and meet the other expenses of the war, by levying contributions in Mexico. He is 
thus clothed with such authority, left in a foreign country to form his plans and carry 
them into execution. Is he not thus invested with all the power and dignity of a 
prince, free to obey the dictates of his own arbitrary will at the head of seventy or 
eighty thousand men, dictating laws to another nation, collecting and disbursing its re¬ 
venues, ruling there with a despotic sway, and by the patronage and power thus cre¬ 
ated, controlling the action of his proper constituency at home ? Such a power, sir, 
ought not to be trusted to the President of the U. S. Above all things, sir, regulars 
should not be the force placed at his disposal. The honorable chairman of the Com¬ 
mittee on Military Affairs has told us that regulars were to be preferred, because, when 
they entered the army, they surrendered every right but the right of obedience ! and 
became “ mere machines.” This avowal led me to look with horror upon such a de¬ 
scription of force. I prefer the volunteers, because, although they enter the service of 
the country, they yield none of the rights of freemen. I am opposed to putting into the 
hands of the Executive a military force which knows no law but their master’s bid¬ 
ding, moving at his will, obeying his behests implicitly, and holding themselves free 
from all the obligations and responsibilities of citizenship. When you put a vast force 
of that description into the hands of the Executive, have you not, as far as possible, 
rendered him independent of you ? Have you not converted him from a President 
into a Prince—from a republican Chief Magistrate into a Military Dictator ? 

When, on the present plan of the campaign, is the war to end ? War, it must be 
admitted by all, is a great evil. Is there to be no end to it in this case ? Must 

“-the tears 

And blood of earth flow on as they have flowed, 

An universal deluge—which appears 
Without an ark for wretched man’s abode— 

And ebbs but to re-flow.” 

Is it our design, in sending these troops to Mexico, to sit cut the Mexican people, 
and try an experiment of obstinacy between the two races? If so, lettis recollect 
the just and forcible remark made here last winter by the Senator from Missouri, 
(Mr. Benton,) in speaking of the line proposed to be taken by the Senator from 
South Carolina, that no people on earth have such obstinate perseverance as the old 
Cav.ilian race, and that this quality is to be found to a great extent in the present in¬ 
habitants of Mexico. The Senator then reminded us, that if we undertake the pro¬ 
cess of sitting out the Mexicans, we should not forget the example of the Moors; for, 
as he remarked, they sat a thousand years, and the Spaniards at last sat them out, 
and took possessioh of the whole of Spain. Sir, 1 am not in favor of voting these re¬ 
gulars to the President, in order to enlarge our military forces in Mexico. The force 



16 


there now is ample for every legitimate purpose. If the President wishes to prolong 
the experiment for another year, of occupying the portion of the country now in our 
military possession, he has ampel force to do so. 1 am not willing to encourage the 
President in any scheme of territorial aggrandizement, or by any action of mine to ex¬ 
cite, if it does not already exist, a disposition to seize and annex the whole of Mexico. 
I desire no such result; nay, 1 should dread it as a calamity. I should look upon it 
with horror as a fatal misfortune. If we are to have any additional troops, let them 
be volunteers. Let them be men of that superior character of which the Senator 
from Mississippi (Mr. Davis) spoke. Let them be men who realize their rights; who 
have a position in society which connects them indissolubly with every thing dear to- 
the happiness and future welfare of the country. Let us not put any more of these 
“machines” into the hands of the President, which he may, if it be his pleasure, 
turn against ourselves. 

It has been supposed that the people of the United States have a desire that some 
acquisition should be made from Mexico by force. I am extremely unwilling to be¬ 
lieve that the people of my country entertain such a wish, or cherish such a purpose. 
But of one thing I am certain: the people of my own State neither have in them¬ 
selves, nor encourage in others, a disposition to seize by violence the property of 
Mexico, or to acquire anything from her, except by her voluntary disposition, for a 
full and valuable consideration. The people of North Carolina, I feel sure, are satis¬ 
fied with their own possessions. They fix no eager look of covetousness on the en¬ 
joyments of others. Plain, unpretending, honest, not blessed with the largest amount 
of wealth and power and means which Providence has showered upon other portions 
of the Union, but possessing enough for happiness, enough for respectability, enough 
to enable them to educate their children, and diffuse the principles of morality and 
religious truth amongst them, and to hand down as a legacy to their descendants the 
great principle, that “nothing can be truly great which is not right;” that people, sir, 
are opposed to any such aggressive policy, any such unjust and forcible acquisition. 
They hold, that he who sacrifices the principles of justice on account of property, 
not only yields up his innocence, but sacrifices his interest, and, by his intemperate 
pursuit of what belongs i,o others, surrenders or weakens his best security for the con¬ 
tinued possession of his own. Sir, I feel the strongest conviction that the people of 
my own State do not desire to acquire any thing from Mexico by force ; and that they 
would not be willing to put at hazard the peace of our own country, and weaken the 
bond of our Union, by any considerable acquisition of Mexican territory, however 
freety surrendered and amply paid for. They may be willing, as I am, to procure a 
bay upon the Pacific, with such an addition of territory as shall be necessary, and. 
barely necessary, to unite it with our territory of Oregon, provided it is not obtained 
by force, that the surrender is not dictated by coercive power, but that it is made 
with a true free will, and honestly purchased by us. But if, contrary to my confident, 
expectations, the people who sent me here have, or should have, views contrary to 
those which I have expressed, I cannot sacrifice to their wishes what I believe to be 
their highest honor and their best interests. 

I have thus imperfectly expressed the views under which I must vote against th»: 
proposition on your table. They have been presented with entire frankness on ir 
own part; and, thanking the Senate for the attention with which I have been he 
I will detain them no longer. 


j. 


Q. S. GIDEON» PRINTERS. 







o *•'».!* A <- '■>.»* .0 

rt* a > . _ 


c * * 


*o >,7T^ ^ 

* **o * * ,A V • v ' # 

♦ ••* *♦ 

L * v 




» ** o ^ * 

* ,0 <fc ' 




o w o 


__ V 0° * V^vSS^V aK °o '* ._. „ _ 

U ♦*,*•■ AT . V *e«o’ 4 -»,t* A 

c\ A v **' - o. A *'*°* c\ aP ■>’ ~r ✓» 

/ /\ : .?JR* ; ■ /\ vfiS? : -^K* : • / % 

** A <“. *o * * * ,(r *<*\ ** A <* *© • k * .(y 

,# % • \!/ ♦ ,0* ofJL 9 ** ^o ^ t •'■'/* ^ G 0^ o 0 " 9 

' * 7* aN , r. A. w * 



•’fev*' - 




; ^ $»; ££ 

A -- S ‘ V *■’*’ A°° .. %.'•'•••’'#* %, 

A *»•<>,, A v ** sL/+ v k ’ • °- c\ 

^ *♦ '^Va^ % ,/ •*^2fe'* ^ ** ->Va < 

v^ v : vv *«» o . - 

S o aV^». • <Aa/\n -* A>^< 


• 11 


V ^Sa 



A ^ 




(?* .^J* % °o A % 

o 4 a. v* :£mttF'' '•* o 


* 6 V ^b, A 






°o *C,*’ AT ^ % 

* <0^ »***'“+ ' s- t? k 



4 aA \, 

0 V o 0 * ® ♦ *^o 

G * o 

^ A ' 


: A q 


Wv 


' ” * 



«p. A ^ 

° A * 
° '‘b y ■> 

. A V^ * 

* <y » 



V/ 


* .^ v ■>. 



, *"’■ 0 f 

“ '#y. ♦* 

» « 

• * 

* s?y %$> o 



* A S 0 

<» •...* ,o v 

A^' • 1 1 # * b>. (V , 0 " « 

•©- * _ + £l. g u 



o <j5 °b 

<L^ O 

® « 0 0 *y _ * • . 1 

♦ ^ v •> 



/ ^ 

,///•■•'./,. .X * -' • ’ 0 *°,.. ^ * 

\ &. & ,V%^/>l‘« ^ ,-J^ .‘rSffiSi'. ' ^ & ’ ,' 

: W •M!M: ^ 

»- ,0 s V "v,:T'’ A <V .0^ V ^’.'f' A 

c/ .^’v % ^ c o' .^,'%\ A t »*‘" 

o* •<^^*. ’bv > "of 

v ?> 0 

♦ A ■**, ' 

*,,,.' .0^ ^ * 



• %V V ^ 


°X> 







>■ >. 0 •n#. . 

♦ Al S'- t 

h> ^ <$> *°»o' q^, *'#,-»* Ap V ^»«o 

* o >> ^ > < • o < /-v C\* • 4 # / t \> 

^ ,vg|EV. ^ ^ ^p, <§, . 

* /\ °J 1 !I ; SX l WW. } /"° 

.*' .A <^> Ay \ • ♦ ** A <* *'° • * * aG^ 

' ? V J . G o £ar/rpy^ * v G 


0 ^ 



o 

ri» ^' ^XVy-r* « h O 

*■<-»»'’ A °^. * 

^ V v +1,* °* q>v A r ^ * 

; vv 




.4 o. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 

. • » . *r ■ 


A ^ 

* A yk 

•* A. V V ri» -> > 

** ^ A 





Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2010 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN COLLECTIONS PRESERVATION 

* / ill Thomson Park Drive 

■* Cranberry Township, PA 16066 


(724) 779-2111 



.<? 

% ( <y .■ 

<. 0 

- ' t-^ ** '^Zzm*' *° X. “fjslsk* ^ ^ ' «g 

.. v—v. • ■ -V < v - ^y"... \‘ ? 

^ V -#fe :'&&■ --M' ' 

c^'f'r. - - S - ^NxWW/XZ 

* A/ 5 • 

V X X - 


o " 



%> *• »’ *' *V. ”*0 * 0 

\ \ /° %** v '^fc, \. /^Jg|.;% 

>^r>> • * ^jjSoyl ..?■■ 

:§fEs£* .,£ •»: 2 V . :4Hi#: 


> * 4 * <sssA|rtk # jN * 

Aci< .■‘MnK’ ®v + .'4 

'^&m: jPt •„! 

• d.r n i. rt »*, * I 

9 AV U O *- ^ ^ A< ^ ■# 

V c\. * 0 ^ *«••*» *> 

<«• .‘ifsiv- . 


0 V - ® 


cr 

: 

\* ^ °* \ rA ^ 
4,r CL 


* 'C'sVZ/ > ? »* * V^mVvvos. vv Q ><i > %a * '* / ^ 3 

r\ * r\ <&» * lN\ivvo^ * kV ^ 

°* * * • ’ *'* *° V * - ^ °o. 

- «. ■ Jk V s .;•«- %_ 

%X % X °'J|||||'' XX X 
^.. \ '^P'*<v * \‘^^* <\ ** 

t- 0 * O j.v # •> • * * <^. rtV 0 « a ■'Zl A> 

o ^ <n + jpnf/TTs* r ~y C • pc55a o » 



• J _ 

..-• y- ^ *..„.•* o’ 'v'*, 

. ^ V #* # ®» C* « 0 r *»’*% 

* ^ ** *>vV^ ^ 

* '*'“- ,a v L -wmy- 


*'\p 0 

^ v \ /\ '-wy/ <zx “3 


<* 


V L o^ U , bv 4 ' , '«S 

—T» -.0 1 ^ o.^ 

ncB ” „*° ... %.*•••• ^ *• 

g I ,. fjK„ \ X '£$&’ XX SXMtic* X 




>’a '<. 

.•LL* ^ ,o v o" 

^ , 4 * £Frf7/2?±* ~y v • 

+j.a ■ 






